To Mark, It's been a great pleasure to listen to you. Such wonderful knowledge. Thank you. You're right that there is no energy transition in the time frame you're considering. And, I invite you to reweigh that time frame. I believe it is critical to understand that homo sapiens inherited a predisposition for shortsightedness (Fox, 2011). Understanding that goes a long way to understanding the environmental and social challenges we face. You are also right to point out the overwhelming and indispensable value of hydrocarbons. Our planning will affect all future generations. There is a potential for that to be > 500 million years / 25 = 20 million generations. Perhaps it is you, who offers a responsible, sustainable plan. We are in this together. : )
Thanks for the comment. Developing robust climate scenarios, rapid technological advancements, and policy changes are essential for navigating the path forward. It's a multifaceted problem requiring a global, collaborative effort. Who would you want me to interview next?
This is one of the best talks I’ve ever heard, but that might just be because Mark has come to the same conclusions as me. However, he is substantially further ahead than me. It tells me that colleagues and I are on the right track to be developing atmospheric methane removal and ocean cooling by cloud brightening.
@@Sustainablelogistics you are welcome. Colleagues and I have been interviewed on Metta Spencer‘s project save the world RUclips channel (I think that’s what it’s called), and we’re always open for interviews. One is a chemist, another is a professor of meteorology. There’s another guy, an expert on ship tracks, which is a little bit closer to your topic of logistics. Let me know and I will provide details. I’m a member of the healthy planet action coalition, where I’m known as Clive. I live in London, UK.
I haven't listened to the whole discussion but I've scanned through bits of the transcript as well, and my main takeaway is that when Mills did his physics degree, one of the subjects missing was critical thinking. At one point he says you can't assess an EV's CO2 emissions based on the average carbon intensity of the electricity supply, you have to use the carbon intensity at the times when the vehicle is actually charging. Then just after that he talks about the average break even range carbon intensity between electric and fossil fuel vehicles is about £60,000 miles, give or take about 50%, which apart from being 3 or 4 times higher than the general consensus, means he has suddenly decided that now you can use averages, when it's good for his argument. Furthermore, if you use a bit of critical thinking and consider that there is probably a bias towards charging EV's overnight using off-peak electricity, this is actually likely to have a lower carbon intensity than the average because all the inefficient peaking generators will be turned off. Also, he appears, from the bits I've listened to and read, to have adopted what is referred to as the 'primary energy fallacy', which assumes that you need a GWh of renewable energy to replace a GWh of fossil energy, which invariably is not the case. For example, 1 GWh of solar electricity used to power electric vehicles can replace probably at least 4GWh of fossil energy extracted from the ground required to power an equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles. There are probably a lot more points I could analyse but I don't have time at the moment.
BS..you DO have to include the C02 from the mineral extraction & manufacturing of EVs & the C02 from what fuels the electrical grid when comparing gasoline engines
From these comments, sounds like you are missing some critical reasoning skills yourself - like every green you imagine solar panels fall from the sky fully manufactured instead of being manufactured and mined by Uygur slaves in Xinjiang. Congratulations.
True, humanity has been operating on an all-of-the-above principle. But will that continue? It’s an irresistible force meeting the immovable consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
Brilliant introduction to the myriad of factors affecting demand and consumption of energy. The only disappointing part was the lack of discussion of what happens if we wake up and see the folly of thinking co2 emissions affect the weather.
Thanks for the comment. This is a deep question that I haven't even thought about because the scientific consensus is overwhelming. I will ask this question from a future guest because its critical to have different views and perspectives. Could you recommend someone that you would like me to interview next?
@@Sustainablelogistics Global warming is complete nonsense. Listen too Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Patrick Moore, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. William Happer and maybe Steve Koonin. See the RUclips channels CDN, EISM, Tom Nelson, Decouple Media and Charles Mizrahi. I have plenty more but that will get you started. It takes about 3 hours to be cured for life of the global warming hysteria. They know it's nonsense. They've admitted they created it to bring about one world government.
Lots of butthurt zealots in the comments attacking this guy. @ 13:00 he explains it perfectly. All evergy production will increase but fossil staying for the time being. I think that's very reasonable. If you think you're so smart then put your money where your mouth is and go all in on renewable. We are going to need a lot more energy moving forward, to think it's all coming from renewable at the expense of fossil is deluded.
Not so much. You just lack knowledge of the topics. LED lighting has dropped Electricity loads. EVs are dropping Oil use. The combination of Local Solar PV + EVs drop both Grid loads and Oil use. That is the path ahead. Many countries are way ahead of US on this. Overall the US tends to be kind of retarded on these things. Why is that? Low education or is it intentional?
@@noneofyourbusiness5433 I think the hardest part with achieving the transition is greed and solidarity. Mankind has never succeeded in overcoming those two obstacles.
@@Sustainablelogistics I partly agree. Our biggest challenge is the stupidity that manifests from making everything political. The whole man made CC is wrapped in BS, and destroying the planet more with all this renewable garbage is far worse. Where are we going to get all the resources for all the stuff they want to make? Copper is a big one too. Does anyone actually think even one of these EV shitboxes will be on the road after 15 years?
I made these arguments in Pluvinergy. However, Mark may not have considered China, coal is peaked, and new plants are just peaking plants. Their wood use is minimal. They planned to finish transition by 2060. They are ahead, and may finish as early as 2050.
I didn't know about the math on the chargers. Sounds like we really need graphene conductors just to make the wires and plug weight manageable for a truly fast charger. But megawatt chargers sound unlikely no matter how good the conductors are.
It's never going to happen (the world will end first) and the conductivity of graphene is likely 1 trillionth that of copper. No hydrocarbons means no civilization.
He didn’t figure in how the car is capable of starting each day with a full “tank of gas” though. Many EV drivers charge overnight for daily needs and rarely have to pull into a roadside charger to “fill up”. He also talked about energy transfer as if an EV needs a gasoline tank’s worth of energy, but EVs need less energy to be transferred onboard for the same range. These are just a couple points that seem missing. I’m not arguing against everything he says. And I’m not a green zealot, I own all kinds of machines and vehicles. But after buying a Tesla it’s been shocking to compare my first hand experiences with all the incomplete or misleading criticisms are out there.
@@colindgrant I think he understands that most daily drivers don't need to charge that often near their home because they can do it at home. But when traveling it's another issue all together. I know many people who gave up on electric because of issues with long road trips. I estimated a while ago that with overnight charging cars would need about a 600 mile range because that's about as far as most anybody wants to drive in a day. I saw that number put out by others later so I know I'm on the same wavelength. I'd love an electric car for around town, but would expect it to be VERY inexpensive to buy, significantly cheaper than the cheapest basic gasoline car,. Add to that the cheaper maintenance and fuel cost and that would be an absolute winner. Of course, there's also the bicycle. That's the way I've gone for now. I bike the majority of trips I do around town. That's a super win. I get exercise and enjoyment along with transportation. The biggest annoyance with the ICE car I own now is occasionally putting air in the tires, and thinking about when it will be time to replace tires and shock absorbers. We need magic hover cars!
@@timothylink4386 ha! I was full time biking for a few years, loved it. I agree that recharge rates do limit daily progress on a road trip. I recently did one that was 673 each way, thru northern California and Oregon’s interior. We started at 35% SoC on the return and that took 12 hours even. Our ICE alternative would have shaved an hour, but doubled the cost. Definite room for improvement on the long distance side of things but the Tesla 250kW superchargers make travel pretty easy. All in all it’s a worthwhile trade off for me so far. But I get that it doesn’t make sense for others’ needs.
Working for government at Reagan time Mark knows about the political failure of Thorium energy, not a technical failure. Electrical trucks are cheaper to run than diesel trucks because of regeneration not only for cost price. The wait is for better batteries technology will further improve. the ‘transition’ is slower than is needed for climate change. We are at the beginning of green electricity / energy transition. Maybe not measurable yet in statistics. China and Europe will have green electricity before America that is political economical, just like the failure to develop Thorium power.
Thanks for the food for thought. I agree that the energy transition is hyped and much more difficult than currently envisaged. But. It is not intellectually honest to list all the difficulties in reducing GHG emissions without mentioning the issue we are trying to address. Global warming is real. We are sailing towards a 3 °C average temperature increase by the end of the century (on average, on land it will be more). We have already locked in more than a meter of sea level rise in the next centuries., and so on. The transition is difficult? It is not working? Let's find a way to make it work and not excuses to ditch it. btw. 60,000 miles for a Tesla GHG breakeven seems a tad too much.
@@Stan-b3v If you assume US energy mix is much less than 60000. You cannot use 100% coal. It does not happen anywhere. The important message, however, is that EVs are the only option to reduce emissions.
Your desired transition can only be achieved with perhaps a reduction in energy use of around 90%. This will equate to a 90% reduction in wealth. This means a feudal society with far fewer people. Certainly slavery will return.
@@jackb8469 Europe has it easier than the rest of the world because we rely on regulations, and Germany has to be a key player in the EU’s Fit for 55 goals.
Technology may have advanced enough to release civilization from the confines of the second law of thermodynamics. These confines were imposed during Victorian England's scientific and religious cultural fascination with steam engines. The second law is behind modern refgeration needing electrical energy to compress the refrigerent to force it to release as waste the heat that it has removed from the refrigerator's service interior in the cooling part of the refrigerent's circulation. There is also discarded heat from mechanical friction and electrical resistance. The total released and discarded heat minus the removed heat equal the electrical input but the attached conversion of electricity into heat is forced. Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it. It makes more sense that refrigerators should yield electricity because energy is widely known to change form with no ultimate path of energy gain or loss being found. Therefore any form of fully recyclable energy can be cycled endlessly in any quantity. In an extreme case senario, full heat recycling, all electric, very isolated underground, undersea, or space communities would be highly survivable with self sufficient EMP resistant LED light banks, automated vertical farms, thaw resistant frozen food storehouses, factories, dwellings, and self contained elevators and horizontal transports. In a flourishing civillization senario, small self sufficient electric or cooling devices of many kinds and styles like lamps, smartphones, hotplates, water heaters, cooler chests, fans, radios, TVs, cameras, security devices, robot test equipment, scales, transaction terminals, wall clocks, open or ciosed for business luminus signs, power hand tools, ditch diggers, pumps, and personal transports, would be available for immediate use incrementally anywhere as people see fit. Some equipment groups could be consolidated on local networks. If a high majority thinks our civilization should geoengineer gigatons or teratons of carbon dioxide out of our environment, instalations using devices that convert ambient heat into electricity can hypothetically be scaled up do it with a choice of comsequences including many beneficial ones. Energy sensible refrigerators that absorb heat and yield electricity would complement computers as computing consumes electricity and yields heat. Computing would be free. Chips could have energy recycling built in. A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motioren of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source, which is Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. The maximum energy is converted from ambient heat to productive electricity when the electrical load is matched to the array impeadence. Matched impeadence output (watts) is k (Boltźman's constant), one point three eight x 10^ minus 23, times T (temperature Kelvin) times bandwidth (0 Hz to a natural limit ~2 THz @ 290 K) times rectification halving and nanowatt power level rectification efficiency, times the number of diodes in the array. For reference, there are a billion cells of 1000 square nanometer area each per square millimeter, 100 billion per square centimeter. Order is imposed on the random thermal motion of electrons by the structual orderlyness of a diode array made of diodes made within a slab: -----‐------‐----_____-- Out 🔻🔻🔻🔻 ■■■■■■___ + Out All the P type semiconductor anodes abut a metal conductive plane deposited on the top face of the slab with nonrectifying joins; the N type semiconductor cathodes or common cathode abuts the bottom face. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is always a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more on equatorial dry desert summer days and less on polar desert winter nights. Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus (N type conductivity) on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron (P type conductivity) with minimal disturbance of the crystal lattice. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact. A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates holes which are similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal noise transients, where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so the forward moving electrons are preferentally filtered into the external circuit. Mobile electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Inside the diode, heat is absorbed: outside the diode, to exactly the same extent, an attached electrical circuit is energized. The voltage of a diode array is likely to be small so many similar arrays need to be put in series to build higher voltage. Understanding diodes is one way to become convinced that Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise can be rectified and aggregated. Self assembling development teams may find many ways to accomplish this wide mission. Taxonomically there should be many ways ways to convert heat directly into electricity. A practical device may use an array of Au needles in a SiO2 matrix abutting N type GaAs. These were made in the 1970s when registration technology was poor so it was easier to fabricate arrays and select one diode than just make one diode. There are other plausible breeches of the second law of thermodynamics. Hopefully a lot of people will join in expanding the breech. Please share the successes or setbacks of your efforts. These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by advanced automation that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. Commerce would be a planetary scale unified conglomerate of diverse local cooperatives. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the top if the wide majority of people can afford to be generous. Aloha Charles M Brown Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754
TL:DR. The second law can't be broken. That's why it's a law. Take a course in thermodynamics before wasting your time writing super long comments about things you know nothing about. If you build a free energy device I'll be the first person to congratulate you, but that's never going to happen.
@@Mivoat here -- copied this over from my longer comment -- some massive messes in the math. The energy estimates comparing Energy with Oil v. Electricity appears to be input energy for Oil, and in the case of Electricity as a net available? All Oil uses are so lossy, if you take the path from Well to Wheels path, (Oil well through transport, refinery, to tank, to engine, to turn the wheels) . . . as little as 10% of the energy input gets through? Meanwhile typical Electricity through-put is typically 80 to 90%. So your claims for energy are way off. In the case of Metals -- Steel, Aluminum, and Copper are all above 60% recycle at this point, so your claims for mining and resources are also way off. Even if your education is only Physics, as opposed to legit Engineering -- you should at least understand basic efficiency equations?
@@philtimmons722 thank you, makes sense, but I’m not sure it entirely demolishes Mark Mills arguments. It would be good to see a reply from Mark Mills.
@@Mivoat I am sure someone from the API (American Petroleum Institute) or Heartland or Manhattan "Institute" (con-job front operations for the Oil and Nuke Industries) could write one for him and he can mouth the words.
I wonder who’s paying this guy to put all that spin against renewable energy while avoiding all the extra variables associated with the carbon energy world.
Ooh something something Tufton Street big oil bogey men. Could it actually be that the energy transition built by costly subsidies won’t make any difference to co2 and the myriad of people who stated exactly that were never influenced by big oil but spoke facts, free from “magical thinking”? It’s far more likely that eco billionaires have spotted an opportunity to enrich themselves still further on billions in government subsidies at the expense of ordinary people.
What a load of rubbish. Individual countries are transitioning. There is no doubt about that. Those countries will then demand other countries transition. As for Norway exporting emissions... you only need to mine batteries once. You have to be an idiot to think its an equivalence. Standard fossil industry propaganda, leaving out important inputs like oil refining energy. Referring to 15 year old figures on CO2 per kWh for batteries. Coal fired electricity is not cheap, its easy to build thats why China use it, they are implementing large amounts of wind and solar. For the past 4 year fossil emissions have not increased, increases (in capacity) have come from renewables and transition to gas, but soon they will eat into existing oil and emissions will reduce. If they don't we are in trouble. Fossil fuel is done, will use it for another decade or so, but we can an will reduce its use drastically.
@@jjolla6391 I listened to about half way through, I'd heard enough. Why does the 2nd half contradict the first half? That would be even more nonsensicle.
If we get to 100% recycling of solar and wind sure but right now we are closer to 8%-10% and little chance of that changing in the near term.. That means 90% of the minerals that go into a solar panel will have to be mined in 25-35 years after install. The problem is we ore quality is decreasing meaning we need more energy for the mining we do today. It would be more accurate to say there is no transitioning this civilization. A smaller society not based on consumption and possibly capitalism is probably doable. How you sell that to the populace though I have no idea.
@@Jeremy-WC Thats a load of irrelevant nonsense. We can recycle as much as we want to pay for. Its a requirement in the EU/UK. The US is the only developed country burying everything because its "cheaper". It cost very little to do recycling. Do you understand what goes in solar panels, its mainly sand. Dopants for semi-conductors use tiny amounts of specific elements. Recycling solar panels and wind turbines is a non-issue, if it becomes an issue it can be fairly easily addressed as it has in the EU/UK.
So... we're facing the depletion of hydrocarbon and mineral resources. The green energy scam is quickening the process. That's why there are so many wars and our governments are acting so strangely. In 30 years copper will be unacquireable. The west lacks the capacity to fight a conventional war (deindustrialized soy-boys) so we're attempting to trick Russia into going nuclear. But it's the west that has no other choice. It's going to keep getting more irrational, not the other way around.
You have some massive messes in your math. Your energy estimates comparing Energy with Oil v. Electricity appears to be input energy for Oil, and in the case of Electricity as a net available? All Oil uses are so lossy, if you take the path from Well to Wheels path, (Oil well through transport, refinery, to tank, to engine, to turn the wheels) . . . as little as 10% of the energy input gets through? Meanwhile typical Electricity through-put is typically 80 to 90%. So your claims for energy are way off. In the case of Metals -- Steel, Aluminum, and Copper are all above 60% recycle at this point, so your claims for mining and resources are also way off. Even if your education is only Physics, as opposed to legit Engineering -- you should at least understand basic efficiency equations?
To Mark, It's been a great pleasure to listen to you. Such wonderful knowledge. Thank you. You're right that there is no energy transition in the time frame you're considering. And, I invite you to reweigh that time frame. I believe it is critical to understand that homo sapiens inherited a predisposition for shortsightedness (Fox, 2011). Understanding that goes a long way to understanding the environmental and social challenges we face. You are also right to point out the overwhelming and indispensable value of hydrocarbons. Our planning will affect all future generations. There is a potential for that to be > 500 million years / 25 = 20 million generations. Perhaps it is you, who offers a responsible, sustainable plan. We are in this together. : )
Thanks for the comment. Developing robust climate scenarios, rapid technological advancements, and policy changes are essential for navigating the path forward. It's a multifaceted problem requiring a global, collaborative effort. Who would you want me to interview next?
This is one of the best talks I’ve ever heard, but that might just be because Mark has come to the same conclusions as me. However, he is substantially further ahead than me. It tells me that colleagues and I are on the right track to be developing atmospheric methane removal and ocean cooling by cloud brightening.
@@Mivoat thank you! Is there a specific topic or a person you would like to be interviewed next?
@@Sustainablelogistics you are welcome. Colleagues and I have been interviewed on Metta Spencer‘s project save the world RUclips channel (I think that’s what it’s called), and we’re always open for interviews. One is a chemist, another is a professor of meteorology. There’s another guy, an expert on ship tracks, which is a little bit closer to your topic of logistics. Let me know and I will provide details. I’m a member of the healthy planet action coalition, where I’m known as Clive. I live in London, UK.
Could you contact me via X: atsundstrom or via LinkedIn (you can find the link in my Bio and Lets do an interview.
Thank you for sharing this valuable information.
@@masucci61 is there something else you would like to hear about?
I haven't listened to the whole discussion but I've scanned through bits of the transcript as well, and my main takeaway is that when Mills did his physics degree, one of the subjects missing was critical thinking.
At one point he says you can't assess an EV's CO2 emissions based on the average carbon intensity of the electricity supply, you have to use the carbon intensity at the times when the vehicle is actually charging. Then just after that he talks about the average break even range carbon intensity between electric and fossil fuel vehicles is about £60,000 miles, give or take about 50%, which apart from being 3 or 4 times higher than the general consensus, means he has suddenly decided that now you can use averages, when it's good for his argument.
Furthermore, if you use a bit of critical thinking and consider that there is probably a bias towards charging EV's overnight using off-peak electricity, this is actually likely to have a lower carbon intensity than the average because all the inefficient peaking generators will be turned off.
Also, he appears, from the bits I've listened to and read, to have adopted what is referred to as the 'primary energy fallacy', which assumes that you need a GWh of renewable energy to replace a GWh of fossil energy, which invariably is not the case. For example, 1 GWh of solar electricity used to power electric vehicles can replace probably at least 4GWh of fossil energy extracted from the ground required to power an equivalent internal combustion engine vehicles.
There are probably a lot more points I could analyse but I don't have time at the moment.
How much energy does it take to mine the battery metals, copper, etc. for EV's?
BS..you DO have to include the C02 from the mineral extraction & manufacturing of EVs & the C02 from what fuels the electrical grid when comparing gasoline engines
Just because You want to feel good about your EV, does not mean it is a reality.
From these comments, sounds like you are missing some critical reasoning skills yourself - like every green you imagine solar panels fall from the sky fully manufactured instead of being manufactured and mined by Uygur slaves in Xinjiang. Congratulations.
@@jeffreyormichelle1261I love it when someone makes assumptions, like this person has an EV
Appreciate Mark's honesty about CO2 levels continuing to go up for decades. There will have to be massive adaptation.
@@StarLakeFarm How could we make the adaptation earlier and less steep?
True, humanity has been operating on an all-of-the-above principle. But will that continue? It’s an irresistible force meeting the immovable consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
@@charlesashurst1816 We might be the last generation living without having to face the consequences.
The people who disagree with Mark Mills either did not watch the whole program or they did not understand him.
@@williambeattie313 There are different views among professionals and I want to share then all for you! Who would you want to be interviewed next?
Brilliant introduction to the myriad of factors affecting demand and consumption of energy.
The only disappointing part was the lack of discussion of what happens if we wake up and see the folly of thinking co2 emissions affect the weather.
Yes well climate denier conspiracies would go hand in hand with the fossil industry false propaganda this video is spreading.
Thanks for the comment. This is a deep question that I haven't even thought about because the scientific consensus is overwhelming. I will ask this question from a future guest because its critical to have different views and perspectives. Could you recommend someone that you would like me to interview next?
@@Sustainablelogistics Global warming is complete nonsense. Listen too Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Patrick Moore, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. William Happer and maybe Steve Koonin. See the RUclips channels CDN, EISM, Tom Nelson, Decouple Media and Charles Mizrahi. I have plenty more but that will get you started. It takes about 3 hours to be cured for life of the global warming hysteria. They know it's nonsense. They've admitted they created it to bring about one world government.
Are you saying CO2 emissions don't affect weather?
Lots of butthurt zealots in the comments attacking this guy. @ 13:00 he explains it perfectly. All evergy production will increase but fossil staying for the time being. I think that's very reasonable. If you think you're so smart then put your money where your mouth is and go all in on renewable. We are going to need a lot more energy moving forward, to think it's all coming from renewable at the expense of fossil is deluded.
Not so much. You just lack knowledge of the topics. LED lighting has dropped Electricity loads. EVs are dropping Oil use. The combination of Local Solar PV + EVs drop both Grid loads and Oil use. That is the path ahead. Many countries are way ahead of US on this. Overall the US tends to be kind of retarded on these things. Why is that? Low education or is it intentional?
@@noneofyourbusiness5433 I think the hardest part with achieving the transition is greed and solidarity. Mankind has never succeeded in overcoming those two obstacles.
@@Sustainablelogistics I partly agree. Our biggest challenge is the stupidity that manifests from making everything political. The whole man made CC is wrapped in BS, and destroying the planet more with all this renewable garbage is far worse. Where are we going to get all the resources for all the stuff they want to make? Copper is a big one too. Does anyone actually think even one of these EV shitboxes will be on the road after 15 years?
I made these arguments in Pluvinergy. However, Mark may not have considered China, coal is peaked, and new plants are just peaking plants.
Their wood use is minimal. They planned to finish transition by 2060. They are ahead, and may finish as early as 2050.
I didn't know about the math on the chargers. Sounds like we really need graphene conductors just to make the wires and plug weight manageable for a truly fast charger. But megawatt chargers sound unlikely no matter how good the conductors are.
It's never going to happen (the world will end first) and the conductivity of graphene is likely 1 trillionth that of copper. No hydrocarbons means no civilization.
@@timothylink4386 trans.info/en/megawatt-charger-electric-trucks-392832
He didn’t figure in how the car is capable of starting each day with a full “tank of gas” though. Many EV drivers charge overnight for daily needs and rarely have to pull into a roadside charger to “fill up”. He also talked about energy transfer as if an EV needs a gasoline tank’s worth of energy, but EVs need less energy to be transferred onboard for the same range.
These are just a couple points that seem missing. I’m not arguing against everything he says. And I’m not a green zealot, I own all kinds of machines and vehicles. But after buying a Tesla it’s been shocking to compare my first hand experiences with all the incomplete or misleading criticisms are out there.
@@colindgrant I think he understands that most daily drivers don't need to charge that often near their home because they can do it at home. But when traveling it's another issue all together. I know many people who gave up on electric because of issues with long road trips. I estimated a while ago that with overnight charging cars would need about a 600 mile range because that's about as far as most anybody wants to drive in a day. I saw that number put out by others later so I know I'm on the same wavelength. I'd love an electric car for around town, but would expect it to be VERY inexpensive to buy, significantly cheaper than the cheapest basic gasoline car,. Add to that the cheaper maintenance and fuel cost and that would be an absolute winner. Of course, there's also the bicycle. That's the way I've gone for now. I bike the majority of trips I do around town. That's a super win. I get exercise and enjoyment along with transportation. The biggest annoyance with the ICE car I own now is occasionally putting air in the tires, and thinking about when it will be time to replace tires and shock absorbers. We need magic hover cars!
@@timothylink4386 ha! I was full time biking for a few years, loved it. I agree that recharge rates do limit daily progress on a road trip. I recently did one that was 673 each way, thru northern California and Oregon’s interior. We started at 35% SoC on the return and that took 12 hours even. Our ICE alternative would have shaved an hour, but doubled the cost. Definite room for improvement on the long distance side of things but the Tesla 250kW superchargers make travel pretty easy. All in all it’s a worthwhile trade off for me so far. But I get that it doesn’t make sense for others’ needs.
Working for government at Reagan time Mark knows about the political failure of Thorium energy, not a technical failure. Electrical trucks are cheaper to run than diesel trucks because of regeneration not only for cost price. The wait is for better batteries technology will further improve. the ‘transition’ is slower than is needed for climate change. We are at the beginning of green electricity / energy transition. Maybe not measurable yet in statistics. China and Europe will have green electricity before America that is political economical, just like the failure to develop Thorium power.
Thanks for the food for thought. I agree that the energy transition is hyped and much more difficult than currently envisaged.
But.
It is not intellectually honest to list all the difficulties in reducing GHG emissions without mentioning the issue we are trying to address.
Global warming is real. We are sailing towards a 3 °C average temperature increase by the end of the century (on average, on land it will be more). We have already locked in more than a meter of sea level rise in the next centuries., and so on.
The transition is difficult? It is not working? Let's find a way to make it work and not excuses to ditch it.
btw. 60,000 miles for a Tesla GHG breakeven seems a tad too much.
That figure assumes all recharging is done with renewables I think.
If recharged with a gas plant or a coal plant it stretches out much further.
@@Stan-b3v If you assume US energy mix is much less than 60000. You cannot use 100% coal. It does not happen anywhere. The important message, however, is that EVs are the only option to reduce emissions.
@@carlograncini Stop heating your house and cooking your food, that outa help.
It's actually been getting cooler the last 11 years. That's why they changed the name of it.
Your desired transition can only be achieved with perhaps a reduction in energy use of around 90%. This will equate to a 90% reduction in wealth. This means a feudal society with far fewer people. Certainly slavery will return.
How's the green energy working out for Germany?
@@jackb8469 Europe has it easier than the rest of the world because we rely on regulations, and Germany has to be a key player in the EU’s Fit for 55 goals.
Nope.
Technology may have advanced enough to release civilization from the confines of the second law of thermodynamics.
These confines were imposed during Victorian England's scientific and religious cultural fascination with steam engines.
The second law is behind modern refgeration needing electrical energy to compress the refrigerent to force it to release as waste the heat that it has removed from the refrigerator's service interior in the cooling part of the refrigerent's circulation. There is also discarded heat from mechanical friction and electrical resistance. The total released and discarded heat minus the removed heat equal the electrical input but the attached conversion of electricity into heat is forced.
Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it.
It makes more sense that refrigerators should yield electricity because energy is widely known to change form with no ultimate path of energy gain or loss being found. Therefore any form of fully recyclable energy can be cycled endlessly in any quantity.
In an extreme case senario, full heat recycling, all electric, very isolated underground, undersea, or space communities would be highly survivable with self sufficient EMP resistant LED light banks, automated vertical farms, thaw resistant frozen food storehouses, factories, dwellings, and self contained elevators and horizontal transports.
In a flourishing civillization senario, small self sufficient electric or cooling devices of many kinds and styles like lamps, smartphones, hotplates, water heaters, cooler chests, fans, radios, TVs, cameras, security devices, robot test equipment, scales, transaction terminals, wall clocks, open or ciosed for business luminus signs, power hand tools, ditch diggers, pumps, and personal transports, would be available for immediate use incrementally anywhere as people see fit.
Some equipment groups could be consolidated on local networks.
If a high majority thinks our civilization should geoengineer gigatons or
teratons of carbon dioxide out of our environment, instalations using devices that convert ambient heat into electricity can hypothetically be scaled up do it with a choice of comsequences including many beneficial ones.
Energy sensible refrigerators that absorb heat and yield electricity would complement computers as computing consumes electricity and yields heat. Computing would be free. Chips could have energy recycling built in.
A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motioren of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source, which is Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. The maximum energy is converted from ambient heat to productive electricity when the electrical load is matched to the array impeadence.
Matched impeadence output (watts) is k (Boltźman's constant), one point three eight x 10^ minus 23, times T (temperature Kelvin) times bandwidth (0 Hz to a natural limit ~2 THz @ 290 K) times rectification halving and nanowatt power level rectification efficiency, times the number of diodes in the array.
For reference, there are a billion cells of 1000 square nanometer area each per square millimeter, 100 billion per square centimeter.
Order is imposed on the random thermal motion of electrons by the structual orderlyness of a diode array made of diodes made within a slab:
-----‐------‐----_____-- Out
🔻🔻🔻🔻
■■■■■■___ + Out
All the P type semiconductor anodes abut a metal conductive plane deposited on the top face of the slab with nonrectifying joins; the N type semiconductor cathodes or common cathode abuts the bottom face. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is always a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more on equatorial dry desert summer days and less on polar desert winter nights.
Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus (N type conductivity) on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron (P type conductivity) with minimal disturbance of the crystal lattice. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact.
A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates holes which are similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal noise transients, where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so the forward moving electrons are preferentally filtered into the external circuit. Mobile electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Inside the diode, heat is absorbed: outside the diode, to exactly the same extent, an attached electrical circuit is energized. The voltage of a diode array is likely to be small so many similar arrays need to be put in series to build higher voltage.
Understanding diodes is one way to become convinced that Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise can be rectified and aggregated. Self assembling development teams may find many ways to accomplish this wide mission. Taxonomically there should be many ways ways to convert heat directly into electricity.
A practical device may use an array of Au needles in a SiO2 matrix abutting N type GaAs. These were made in the 1970s when registration technology was poor so it was easier to fabricate arrays and select one diode than just make one diode.
There are other plausible breeches of the second law of thermodynamics. Hopefully a lot of people will join in expanding the breech. Please share the successes or setbacks of your efforts.
These devices would probably become segmented commodities sold with minimal margin over supply cost. They would be manufactured by advanced automation that does not need financial incentive. Applicable best practices would be adopted. Business details would be open public knowledge. Associated people should move as negotiated and freely and honestly talk. Commerce would be a planetary scale unified conglomerate of diverse local cooperatives. There is no need of wealth extracting top commanders. We do not need often token philanthropy from the top if the wide majority of people can afford to be generous.
Aloha
Charles M Brown
Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 96754
TL:DR.
The second law can't be broken. That's why it's a law. Take a course in thermodynamics before wasting your time writing super long comments about things you know nothing about. If you build a free energy device I'll be the first person to congratulate you, but that's never going to happen.
EVs use more C02 than gasoline engines
@@paulbadics3500 should one aquire an EV or a 1.0 liter diesel car?
many logical flaws here.
Name a few please, preferably with references. This is too important not to debate properly.
@@Mivoat here -- copied this over from my longer comment -- some massive messes in the math. The energy estimates comparing Energy with Oil v. Electricity appears to be input energy for Oil, and in the case of Electricity as a net available? All Oil uses are so lossy, if you take the path from Well to Wheels path, (Oil well through transport, refinery, to tank, to engine, to turn the wheels) . . . as little as 10% of the energy input gets through? Meanwhile typical Electricity through-put is typically 80 to 90%. So your claims for energy are way off. In the case of Metals -- Steel, Aluminum, and Copper are all above 60% recycle at this point, so your claims for mining and resources are also way off. Even if your education is only Physics, as opposed to legit Engineering -- you should at least understand basic efficiency equations?
@@philtimmons722 thank you, makes sense, but I’m not sure it entirely demolishes Mark Mills arguments. It would be good to see a reply from Mark Mills.
@@Mivoat I am sure someone from the API (American Petroleum Institute) or Heartland or Manhattan "Institute" (con-job front operations for the Oil and Nuke Industries) could write one for him and he can mouth the words.
@@philtimmons722 Well-to-wheels thermal-efficiency for both the best ICE and the best pure-plug-in is 30%
I wonder who’s paying this guy to put all that spin against renewable energy while avoiding all the extra variables associated with the carbon energy world.
Ooh something something Tufton Street big oil bogey men. Could it actually be that the energy transition built by costly subsidies won’t make any difference to co2 and the myriad of people who stated exactly that were never influenced by big oil but spoke facts, free from “magical thinking”? It’s far more likely that eco billionaires have spotted an opportunity to enrich themselves still further on billions in government subsidies at the expense of ordinary people.
@@robertstout7756 we need all the opintons. Who should we interview for a more positive outcome?
@@Sustainablelogistics robert stout
A FF mercenary par excellence...
@@jack0dds11 who would be his nemesis to interview?
What a load of rubbish. Individual countries are transitioning. There is no doubt about that. Those countries will then demand other countries transition.
As for Norway exporting emissions... you only need to mine batteries once. You have to be an idiot to think its an equivalence.
Standard fossil industry propaganda, leaving out important inputs like oil refining energy. Referring to 15 year old figures on CO2 per kWh for batteries.
Coal fired electricity is not cheap, its easy to build thats why China use it, they are implementing large amounts of wind and solar.
For the past 4 year fossil emissions have not increased, increases (in capacity) have come from renewables and transition to gas, but soon they will eat into existing oil and emissions will reduce. If they don't we are in trouble.
Fossil fuel is done, will use it for another decade or so, but we can an will reduce its use drastically.
you haven't paid attention to the talk.
@@jjolla6391 I listened to about half way through, I'd heard enough. Why does the 2nd half contradict the first half? That would be even more nonsensicle.
If we get to 100% recycling of solar and wind sure but right now we are closer to 8%-10% and little chance of that changing in the near term.. That means 90% of the minerals that go into a solar panel will have to be mined in 25-35 years after install. The problem is we ore quality is decreasing meaning we need more energy for the mining we do today. It would be more accurate to say there is no transitioning this civilization. A smaller society not based on consumption and possibly capitalism is probably doable. How you sell that to the populace though I have no idea.
@@Jeremy-WC Thats a load of irrelevant nonsense. We can recycle as much as we want to pay for. Its a requirement in the EU/UK. The US is the only developed country burying everything because its "cheaper". It cost very little to do recycling.
Do you understand what goes in solar panels, its mainly sand. Dopants for semi-conductors use tiny amounts of specific elements.
Recycling solar panels and wind turbines is a non-issue, if it becomes an issue it can be fairly easily addressed as it has in the EU/UK.
@@tonystanley5337 learn something new everyday. Did not know that.
BS
@@rare_wubbox360 who could prove him wrong?
Jevon's paradox, blah blah blah. The data also suggests no energy transition = 6th mass extinction, so............
So... we're facing the depletion of hydrocarbon and mineral resources. The green energy scam is quickening the process. That's why there are so many wars and our governments are acting so strangely. In 30 years copper will be unacquireable. The west lacks the capacity to fight a conventional war (deindustrialized soy-boys) so we're attempting to trick Russia into going nuclear. But it's the west that has no other choice. It's going to keep getting more irrational, not the other way around.
Catastrophe porn
You have some massive messes in your math. Your energy estimates comparing Energy with Oil v. Electricity appears to be input energy for Oil, and in the case of Electricity as a net available? All Oil uses are so lossy, if you take the path from Well to Wheels path, (Oil well through transport, refinery, to tank, to engine, to turn the wheels) . . . as little as 10% of the energy input gets through? Meanwhile typical Electricity through-put is typically 80 to 90%. So your claims for energy are way off. In the case of Metals -- Steel, Aluminum, and Copper are all above 60% recycle at this point, so your claims for mining and resources are also way off. Even if your education is only Physics, as opposed to legit Engineering -- you should at least understand basic efficiency equations?